Responding to Climate Hoax Advocates


Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D  

Over the Thanksgiving Holiday, I had an opportunity to ask my 12 yr. old granddaughter and 10 yr. old grandson about what they are being taught in public school about the manmade climate change hoax.  As expected, they both reported being told that the earth was warming due to mankind’s burning of fossil fuels and, if not stopped, the earth will become uninhabitable.  This indoctrination was not in the context of a science class teaching students how to evaluate and determine scientific fact, but by random instruction and teacher comments in a variety of classes.    

After giving them an alternative, scientific way to evaluate these false claims, I suggested that they ask teachers a series of questions designed to expose the lack of scientific evidence that man is responsible for climate change.  Here are some of the logical questions I suggested they ask their teachers.  #1.  Has the earth’s climate ever been warmer or colder than it is today?   If so, how many times, to what degree, and how long ago?  True answer: The earth has never been at a constant (i.e. normal) temperature and is always changing.  In fact, evidence shows that the earth has experienced several ice ages/warming cycles all of which occurred before man’s actions could have possibly caused the changes. #2.  What naturally occurring events have caused the earth’s climate to change?   True answer:  Fluctuations in the intensity of the sun, changes in earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, alteration in ocean currents, and changing the tilting axis of the earth, are all possible natural causes of climate change, none of which could have be caused by man’s activities. #3.  What scientific proof exists that rising levels of CO2 are causing climate change?  True answer:  Blaming CO2 emissions is based on computer models not on demonstrated scientific proven facts.  Computer models can be programmed to produce whatever result the programmer wants. In fact, the climate change predictions over the past 40 years have not accurately predicted any observable climate variation. In fact, a group of over 1600 global scientists recently concluded that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are impacting the climate as the climate alarmists would have us believe. #4.  What is the best way for mankind to protect itself from naturally occurring climate fluctuations? True answer:  Air conditioning and heat are what has allowed mankind to live in a variety of climates.  These require abundant and inexpensive energy.  This can only be accomplished by consuming abundant cheap fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy.  Wind and solar can never provide enough energy for all of mankind’s needs if we are to maintain  modern societies.  #5.  What then is driving this war on fossil fuels?  True answer:  People who put ideology above truth, and those (like China) who stand to benefit financially from wind, solar, and electric vehicles.  Follow the Money!!! 

Our children are being indoctrinated and frightened by the climate hoax advocates in our schools and social media.  It is up to us as responsible parents, grandparents and relatives to give our children the facts to fight back. Children should be raised to be logical seekers of truth not mindless robots.  I hope you can use this information to help your children before it is too late to save modern Western Civilization.  Stop scaring our children!  

Why Global Regulations Don’t Work

Theoretically the idea of all countries working together to make the world a better place is a really good idea. Unfortunately, it loses something when you put it into practice. My current case in point–the debate over greenhouse gas emissions.

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that Brazil, South Africa, India and China have asked industrialized nations to step up their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a key UN climate summit later this year. China’s climate change minister Xie Zhenua called for greater cooperation from industrialized countries. Well, wait a minute. This is ridiculous. This is like having a race with someone who when you take the lead says, “Stop, I need a chance to pass you so I can win.” Why are China and India not considered industrialized countries?

The article reports:

Former president George W. Bush said Kyoto was fatally flawed because it does not require developing giants, already major polluters, to take on similar constraints.

European countries are generally on track for their emissions reductions, but Canada is poised to miss its target by a wide margin.

At the same time, emissions by China, India, Indonesia and Brazil have rocketed — nations bound by Kyoto account for less than 30 percent of global CO2 emissions, which hit record levels in 2010.

Japan, Canada and Russia have said they will not sign up for a new round of carbon-cutting vows.

The European Union (EU) says it will only do so if other nations — including emerging giants such as China and India, which do not have binding targets — beef up efforts in a parallel negotiating arena.

Developing countries, though, insist the Protocol be renewed in its current form. 

Of course the developing countries want the Protocol renewed in its current form–it puts no restrictions on them, just on everyone else.

In September of 2010, a website called Alttransport.com reported:

For the first time this decade global CO2 emissions decreased 1.3 percent in 2009, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. But that drop was offseted by a significant rise in emissions in China and India by 9 and 6 percent.

While the drop is a reason to celebrate, the decrease in emissions is linked to the slow global economy. China and India, on the other hand, have had two of the fastest growing economies — with India’s growth rate at about 8.6 percent and China’s at 10.3 percent.

I don’t wish any harm on the ‘developing’ counties–I just want to know at what point they cease to be ‘developing’ and become developed. It seems to me that with the amount of jobs outsourced from America to India, that maybe America should be seen as de-developing and India should be seen as developed. Considering the trade deficit between America and China, are we sure China is ‘developing,’ or is it developed? The debate over carbon emissions is another way to penalize countries that have achieved commercial success in an attempt to let other countries achieve that success. I have a better idea. If ‘developing’ countries truly want to become commercially successful, they need to look to the model of America at its founding–give everyone an equal chance to own property and to be successful. You’d be surprised what equal opportunity does to the growth of a country’s economy!
Enhanced by Zemanta